Figure 4
Figure 4. Validation of microarray analyses and phenotype of rM compared with in vitro-derived M1 and M2 macrophages. Quantitative PCR for (A) genes most differentially expressed in rM versus pro-inflammatory macrophages validating original microarray findings, including (B) CD209a, the monocyte-derived DC marker, which was included arising from the DC-like phenotype deduced in Figure 3. For comparisons with established M1/M2 cells, BMDMs were incubated with either LPS/IFN-γ (M1) and/or IL-4 (M2) for 24 hours. RNA was extracted and probed for a range of typical (C) M1, (D) M2, and (E) M2b markers. Data are represented and analyzed by ANOVA followed by Bonferroni multiple comparison tests. Values are mean ± SEM of n = 5 or 6 mice per group. *P < .05, **P < .01, and ***P < .001.

Validation of microarray analyses and phenotype of rM compared with in vitro-derived M1 and M2 macrophages. Quantitative PCR for (A) genes most differentially expressed in rM versus pro-inflammatory macrophages validating original microarray findings, including (B) CD209a, the monocyte-derived DC marker, which was included arising from the DC-like phenotype deduced in Figure 3. For comparisons with established M1/M2 cells, BMDMs were incubated with either LPS/IFN-γ (M1) and/or IL-4 (M2) for 24 hours. RNA was extracted and probed for a range of typical (C) M1, (D) M2, and (E) M2b markers. Data are represented and analyzed by ANOVA followed by Bonferroni multiple comparison tests. Values are mean ± SEM of n = 5 or 6 mice per group. *P < .05, **P < .01, and ***P < .001.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal